SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 3618

S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer – Appellant
Versus
K. V. Dasarathan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Y.T. Aravind Gosh.
For the Respondent: Mr. T. Muruganantham.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 11 of TNPID Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.05.2013 made in O.A.No.19 of 2010, passed by the Special Judge under TNPID Act, Chennai.)

The Fair and Decreetal order dated 30.05.2013 passed in O.A.No.19 of 2010 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The authority competent under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors [In Financial Establishments Act] 1997, ['TNPID Act] is the appellant, questioned raising of the attachment passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.585, Home (Police XIX) Department dated 27.07.2009.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that one M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Finance, consisting of 15 partners, collected huge amount of deposits from various depositors, who all are public in general. On demand, the said M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Finance was unable to return the matured deposits to the depositors and the amount of deposit collected is running more than a sum of Rs.15 Crores. During the year 2006, the bonafide depositors preferred a complaint before the District Crime Branch, Thiruvannamalai and the cas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top